@ P. Ami
“If one is dangerous to the other and/or to the family then I can understand divorce. That is about it. Again, richer or poorer, sickness or health. So long as one is not physically in danger from the other then work it out. Its not a question of being capable of working it out it is a question of what avenues are available to allow people under emotional stress to make very bad decisions. The stress of daily life effects us all and we take it out on one another. Again, only physical harm is a fair reason to destroy a family.”
Again, I think I’d include the case where they truly hate each other – the kind of couple where each partner wants the other to die but is not doing anything to facilitate that.
“Marriage is about helping take care of one another. This is economics.”
But the hook, the initial motive to get married, for most people today, is love. In the older days, women could not support themselves economically. They weren’t allowed to get jobs – instead, they were married off like property – the father would “give” his daughter away. Those days have ended, and so there needed to be another reason for people to get married. Love was connected to marriage for that reason. Otherwise, people would have no need of getting married – if they can support themselves economically, there is no econonmic reason for marriage. Marriage is now largely pursued out of a desire for a lasting companionship.
“Love, romantic love, always goes away and sometimes returns. Once you have kids you change, the relationship changes, what stays the same is the commitment.”
If all goes well, yes.
“Because it harms the child who was adopted. It brings unnecessary confusion and uprooting. You have enough confused and uprooted people in society, that society becomes confused and uprooted.”
I want to point out that I was talking specifically about gay couples who do not adopt. Why can’t they get married?
“A part of the definition of marriage is that it only ends at death. When as many people get divorced as do in this environment then we can see that the concept of marriage has been undermined.”
I would argue that “til death do us part” is no longer a real part of the definition of marriage. With a 50% divorce rate, it is flipping a coin. It’s lip service.
“I am not even sure it was done through a plan to undermine it (although one can argue that the early communists, and various other modernists argued for communal living, property and wives. They tended to get quite a few divorces at a time when this was very uncommon, so perhaps their ideas spread and the same sort of chaos their “artistic” lives exhibited has now spread to the rest of society. Its one idea anyway).”
I’d say it probably has a lot more to do with the success of the women’s rights movement in this country. They can now support themselves economically, so they don’t have an economic incentive to marriage unless they desire children. I think a lot of women have the attitude that they can have children later in life anyway, after they accomplish all their career goals. Perhaps we are just in a transition to a new paradigm where women don’t get married until their 30′s – after giving it more thought, and having more finances. I think that is a good strategy in a (relatively) new world, and perhaps there will come a day when we view two 18 year olds getting married and having their children within two years as a couple of idiots. That’s certainly what I think of it, now.
“I think it was done shortsightedly, in the same manner in which you would accept the next undermining, gay marriage.”
Again, I don’t see how one connects to the other. I imagine that the divorce rate among gay people will be 50%, just like the rest of the population. It’s not going to make marriage as an institution any weaker.
“A person alone, or even a couple, cannot confer onto themselves the status of married couple as marriage is a state within a community.”
However, the only power they must get approval from is the state, not the community. A person cannot stop a marriage by protesting when the pastor says “Speak now or forever hold your peace”. I see what you’re saying though – the reason that gay marriage is illegal is because society has defined marriage to exclude it.
“Going back to previous logic, leaders of the gay community do have the power to marry. They can marry any gay man or gay woman to one another. You argue that this bypasses the intention of the gay community, which is to have same sex marriage. True.”
Thank you for finally admitting that (that it bypasses the intentions of the gay community). It completely misses the intention of the gay community – completely ignores what the argument is all about – and that is why it is an irrelevant and ridiculous argument.
“But, disallowing same sex marriage is consistent with the reason that society created marriage in the first place. Is consistent with every known community and this distinction is not made in order to subjugate the gay community to the whims of the hetero-centric world.”
It is consistent, but with changing social norms, the role of marriage in society is changing. Frankly, I doubt it can be stopped. The economic conditions of society are different.
The fear that allowing gays to get married is going to ruin the institution of marriage is what is motivating the push against it. I still don’t see the connection – I doubt gay people will be any more likely to get divorced than straight people.
“Meanwhile you don’t see the problem in increasing the standards of bigotry. Who gets to decide what is bigoted?”
It’s the community that decides in both cases. But you were talking about the right of business owners to discriminate on the basis or race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc – the right of them to put bigotry into practice. I think we can both agree that it is bigoted to hang a sign that says “we don’t serve (insert ethnic/racial/sex orientation slur here)”.
As far as your standard for divorce goes, I don’t think even a majority of Americans would support that standard – they would want something a little looser than that.
“I would not favor an end to borders anymore then I would favor an end to property rights. I don’t agree that equal resources bring about human equality. Some people work harder then others. Some people are more skilled then others (often a function of hard work). Some people are more talented then others. Some people are kinder then others. Some people are more responsible then others.”
I’m not shooting for total equality of the kind advocated in communism – what I would like to see is a more equitable distribution of resources, so that we could end famine. I would also like to see an end to wars, that a global government might bring about.
Some people are more intelligent than others. Some people are healthier than others. Some people can afford a better education than others. Some people are born into a war-torn and starving part of the world. Nature, as you say in a few sentences, favors some people over others (although I don’t agree that nature favors some groups of people over others – along racial lines, at least).
I probably lean a little more towards determinism than you do when it comes to the issue of human character. Our environment can have disastrous effects on our character development, and I think, often, the obstacles are insurmountable. I don’t think people should be allowed to starve for being lazy, dumb, or ignorant, either. That’s the extent to which I would utilize and redistribute the world’s resources. And certainly children, whose characters are not even formed yet, ought not to be allowed to starve by having the misfortune of being born into a bad situation.
“Some people are more selfish then others.”
We Amercans (and I include myself here) are the most selfish nation on the planet. We use way more resources than anyone else. We do way more damage to the environment – and those in the Third World will be the first ones to pay the price for it.
“There is equality under the law. While men, according to population ratio, commit more crimes then women a judge cannot rule that the murder case before her must have been committed by the man before the court, rather then the woman, solely based on that statistic. One needs to bring real evidence regarding that particular crime and that particular suspect/defendant.”
While there is equality under the law (gay marriage and civil unions notwithstanding), equality under the law does not equal equality in practice.
For example, although segregation is illegal, de facto segregation still occurs. I do think that is a problem for politics rather than the law – changing people’s attitudes. But certain social policies can reduce segregation indirectly – by reducing crime and poverty (because they go hand in hand), I believe we could gradually integrate our society.
“The government cannot favor one race, color or creed of American. Nature often does. While justice must be blind, the community cannot be.”
Nature does not favor certain races over others. Society does. Society as in, the citizens outside the government.
“Rather then law we generally have tradition.”
We have a lot of laws, though.
“If we simply went with nature’s methods, older parents would be left to die when injured because the younger adults feel like eating a bunch of bananas rather then care for their parents.”
I’m not sure that’s the case, either. In a lot of more primitive societies, elders occupy a central role in the society – they are in positions of power, and they remain the head of the family. A lot of third world cultures treat their elders better than we treat our own. It is perfectly natural to care for elders.
In contrast, we largely shut our elders away into nursing homes and hospitals in a futile effort to prolong life. We tend to think of them as foolish and senile rather than wise.
“We have developed cultural habits which indicate and reinforce caring; gift-giving, the awareness of special events in people’s lives, caring for the sick and injured, participating in common tasks, participation in special holidays and assemblies of the group. These common practices are bonding agents for people. In some cultures the birthday celebrant gives gifts on their birthdays. In some cultures gifts are received by the birthday celebrant. Some cultures consider the new year to be the day when one adds a year to their age. Some do so on the anniversary of the individual’s birth. What this indicates of the value one culture holds to the individual relative to the group is beyond our conversation.”
Some of these practices are natural, others are learned.
“The point is that a group that survives maintains some very regular habits to reinforce a bond. It is not often that the tradition of one culture is so antithetical to another that they are willing to be killed at the borders where these two cultures meet.”
We have developed a much more individualistic culture than most others. It may be a sign that our culture won’t last.
I still don’t see how changing this one tradition, the definition of marriage, will cause the collapse of our culture. You are placing too much emphasis on the institution of marriage as you know it.
“Unless you are Ghandi, who had the advantage of believing in reincarnation, those who think otherwise are the controlling agents in the equation between a peaceful people and a warlike one. So you either give your head to the jackboot or you accept the need to put one on yourself. No amount of idealism will change that.”
You put one on in self-defense, not to take resources from someone else when they won’t sell the resources to you. Obviously, that’s not how it works out in reality, though. Nations don’t really operate in moral terms.
You either strive for an ideal or you don’t. The ideal world is very difficult to achieve – but at this time, very few people are truly striving for it. Everyone believes it is impossible, so no one tries. Self-fulfilling prophecy.
“Faith in the possibility of world peace has as little proof in its favor as faith in a deity does. I would suggest that only a deity can bring peace on Earth and so the existence of One is required for the possibility of the other.”
The belief in deities leads to more war than it prevents.
“As for oppressing 6 billion people, who would have thought that 300 million people could be oppressed? Many suggest we are being oppressed in our own country and it shouldn’t be possible to accomplish that considering our numbers.”
Many suggest that – wrongly. We aren’t seriously being oppressed, not in any sort of dictatorial way. Our rights are being impinged upon, but it is no police state.
However, there is a vast difference between 300 million people and 6 billion people. Even if it is possible to build a police state in America, that is still orders of magnitude away from building a police state over the entire world.
“Perhaps you, as an individual, can treat everyone equally but the Constitution does not have this duty, nor do the Bill of Rights. The American system of government is meant to favor Americans. These documents define the American government and protect the American people. One does not think that these principles should extend only to Americans. The American system, though, is meant to serve only Americans.”
This is the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law – between actually believing in freedom and human rights, and just paying lip service to them.
“If we wish to extend this to foreigners, fine, but it is foolish to extend them to enemies.”
No, it is not foolish. During World War II, we extended POW protections to Nazi and Japanese soldiers we captured. They were a very formidable enemy – much more dangerous than Al Qaeda is today. That is why we had such a clear-cut and obvious moral authority in the eyes of the world. The German and Japanese forces treated our soldiers, in contrast, absolutely horribly – yet we never sunk to their level. It wouldn’t have made much sense to do so – to abuse the average German or Japanese footsoldier, who may have been coerced into fighting, anyway. It’s a case of letting your anger at the enemy get the better of you.
Treating the “enemy combatants” in the way we are treating them, by indefinitely detaining them, not applying due process to them, and torturing them (and I believe we do torture our enemies, in those CIA black sites in other countries), undermines our moral authority. Add to that the serious risk of detaining and torturing an innocent person and, we have seriously jeaopardized our moral authority in the eyes of the world. That’s why we have no allies now. If we want to win (whatever that means in the war on terror), we need allies.
“Foreign combatants are not protected by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. The Geneva Conventions have been given the authority to govern combat. One of the principles of the Geneva Conventions is that if one side breaks them then the other side is free to do as they please.”
I am unable to find such a principle. Please tell me which Convention it is from, and which part of it. What I find says that under all circumstances, detained prisoners are to be treated humanely, including unlawful combatants. Read about the Third Geneva Convention for that. This kind of lawyer’s loophole in morality, where a person somehow loses their status as human because they don’t fit a certain legal definition of “lawful combatant” is obviously just bullshit.
“The other side broke the Geneva Conventions long before we did. Case closed.”
Nope, the Geneva Conventions does not operate in this emotional, tit-for-tat manner. Think about Kosovo, Bosnia, and Serbia when you say “anything goes” when the other side is not abiding by international law. That opens the door to vicious ethnic conflicts where both sides are commiting war crimes. If it were as you say, only the side that initiated the atrocities against civilians first could be prosecuted for war crimes.
“Communism is Socialism that desires a one world order. Sort of like what you think looks like a nice idea.”
Sort of, but that is not all there is to communism. It involves the abolition of classes, violent overthrow of governments, a “dictatorship of the proletariat”, and a lot of other things I don’t agree with.
“Read “It Takes A Village” and you will find ideas filched directly from Fahrenheit 451.”
I will do that, although I tend to disagree with a lot of Hilary’s ideas anyway.
“On the other hand, gay couples do not get this benefit of the doubt as it is so minority a position that the coupling of gays would produce a marriage (a couple committed to making a family) that allowing it makes an open and declared statement that marriage simply means, these two people are dating really, really, really seriously.”
I have just as much confidence in gay people to create a devoted relationship as I have in heterosexuals. Why don’t you? Do you believe gays are inherently fickle, of a lesser moral fiber, or more promiscuous?
“That wasn’t an Israeli extremist who said that. He was a freely elected member of the Knesset, Rabbi Meir Kahane, who said it. This quote was a very serious and well principled utterance. It was spoken by a person who felt responsible for the safety of the Jewish State and it’s people. He was voted into the Knesset whose purpose is to represent the interests of the Jewish People. So a Jewish fingernail should be more important then an Arab life, seeing as the Arabs are enemies of the State of Israel and their people.”
Absolutely not, and the fact that he was elected is disgusting. He was indeed an extremist – a maniac, I would say. 1,000 Arab lives for a FINGERNAIL? That is pure lunacy and naked racism.
“The care a representative of a nation should take in the lives of foreign nationals is proportional to how where that foreign national is on the ally-enemy scale.”
I disagree, and if this way of thinking – that Arab lives are worthless – is very common, it helps explain why the Palestinians hate Israel so much – in part. Nazis would have said the exact same thing about Jews, and it would have been just as horrible.
“If Bush took the interests of a Canadian living in Quebec with the same care as he does my interests then he is not acting as President of the United States.”
If he so devalued the lives of Canadians that he is more willing to kill 1,000 of them rather than clip off an American fingernail, he is a maniac and a tyrant.
“Worse yet, if a leader of a country protects an enemy of his people while harming his own, I consider that a severe betrayal.”
There is a difference between protecting your people from an enemy and saying the enemy (and let’s make this clear – to say “Arab” is not the same as saying “Palestinian terrorist” – an Arab is anyone from a Muslim culture, basically) is less than human and deserves no consideration in the matter, is disgusting, fascist thinking.
It is no surprise he was assassinated. He was evil.
Some more things he said:
“… Western democracy has to be ruled out. For me that’s cut and dried: there’s no question of setting up democracy in Israel, because democracy means equal rights for all, irrespective of racial or religious origins.”
“Democracy and Judaism are two opposite things. One absolutely cannot confuse them. The objective of a democratic state is to allow a person to do exactly as he wishes. The objective of Judaism is to serve God and to make people better. These are two totally opposite conceptions of life.”
Advocating Jewish terrorism in response to Arab terrorism:
“I want to scare them and I want to make them realize that, contrary to what they have believed for fifteen years, time is not on their side… And I approve of anybody who commits such acts of violence. Really, I don’t think that we can sit back and watch Arabs throwing rocks at buses whenever they feel like it. They must understand that a bomb thrown at a Jewish bus is going to mean a bomb thrown at an Arab bus.”
So, a bomb thrown at a Jewish school bus will be a bomb thrown at an Arab school bus, then. That is evil.
“I suppose you have found a way to be connected to nothing and no one, everything and everyone? You wouldn’t be having this conversation with me if that were true.”
I have never advocated such disconnection.
“I assumed you are in your middle twenties. That would make you 10 years younger then me.”
Close enough. I’m 22.
“My son is learning numbers and letters. Politics, not so much.”
Ah, I thought there might be a hidden meaning.
